Complainant absent
Opponents No.1 & 2 Ex-parte
ORDER
(Per- Mr. S. S. Vyavahare, Hon’ble President.)
1) The complainants have filed this complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opponents for getting compensation alleging deficiency of service on their part.
2) Facts giving rise to the present complaint in short are as under.
3) The opponent No.1 is hotel under the name & style M/s. Ramee Guest Line Hotel, whereas opponent No.2 is Valet Parking under the name & style Jay Ambe Valet Parking. The offices of opponent No.1 & 2 are situated on the address mentioned in the complaint.
4) Complainant No.1 is father of complainant No.2. The complainant No.1 was having one four wheeler car of Tata Safari Car. It is the contention of the complainant that on 03/11/2011 the complainant No.2 along with his friends visited opponent No.1 in above mentioned car. At about 12.15 a.m. at midnight on 04/11/2011 the complainant No.2, after visiting to opponent No.1 had entrusted the keys of his car to one Mr. Guddu Jha who was employed by opponent No.1 in his hotel to park guest car of opponent No.1in the valet parking area. It is also contention of the complaint that Shri Guddu Jha has also assured to the complainant No.2 about his identity and further assured that, he will safely park the car and the car parked in the valet parking are within the control of opponent No.1. Believing the representation of the said person complainant No.2 handed over the same car to Shri Guddu Jha. It is further contention of the complainant that Shri Guddy Jha also issued valet parking receipt to complainant No.2. At about 02.45 a.m. when complainant No.2 left the hotel of opponent No.1 he demanded for the return of his car from the valet parking counter and also produced valet parking receipt. The concern person Guddu Jha after receiving the receipt went to fetch the car but he reported about the missing of the vehicle from the valet parking area. The complainant No.2 was shocked and therefore again he confirmed the said fact by accompanying to the said spot with Guddu Jha. According to the complainants Shri Guddu Jha being servant/agent of opponent No.1 and 2 was negligent in parking the vehicle unsafely. Therefore both the opponents are vicariously liable for the theft of the vehicle. The complainants also reported the theft to police. Complainants also issued notice to opponents calling upon them to pay compensation. According to the complainants the cost of the vehicle was Rs.10,00,000/- Therefore, complainants have filed present complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opponents for negligently keeping the vehicle of the complainants.
5) Both the opponents though served remained absent and therefore matter was proceeded ex-parte against them by my learned predecessor. The complainants were called upon to adduce their evidence. The complainants did so by filing their evidence affidavit. Since then complainants did not turn up before the forum. Today also complainants were absent. The contents of complaint and evidence affidavit are very much similar to each other which need not be repeated again. Since the opponents are ex-parte the contents of complaint and evidence affidavit have gone unchallenged. The complainants have filed on record the exit check, statement of Guddu Jha and copy of FIR to justify the visit of the complainant No.2 to opponent No.1, parking of his car in valet parking area through Guddu Jha who is employee of opponent No.1. The copy of FIR shows about the theft of the vehicle. Whereas, the copy of notice issued to opponent No.1 sufficiently go to show that vehicle of the complainant which was handed over to Guddu Jha on day of incident was stolen on 04/11/2012. It further shows that the vehicle was entrusted to Guddu Jha who was employee of opponent No.1 & 2. Therefore opponents are liable for act of their agent for deficiency of service on his part. Therefore we have no hesitation to accept unchallenged testimony of complainant No.2 to hold deficiency of service on the part of the opponents to conclude that complainant is entitled to get compensation.
6) The complainants have shown the value of the car Rs.10,00,000/- they have not produced the purchase receipt of said car nor complainants have made it clear that vehicle in dispute was insured or not. The complainant have also not made it clear whether they have received any amount from insurance company. The registration documents of the said car shows that registration was carried out for the year 2009-2010 meaning thereby the vehicle was purchased in the year 2009. The incident has occurred in 2011 and therefore it would not be justified to grant Rs.10,00,000/- towards cost of the vehicle. Considering 10% depreciation per year on said car we are of the view that complainants are entitled to get Rs.7,00,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. Hence following order.
ORDER
- Complaint is allowed.
- It is hereby declared that the opponents have indulged in deficiency of service while maintaining the custody of complainant’s car in their valet parking.
- The opponent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally, within two months from the receipt of copy order do pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for loss of his car. Failing to which they shall further pay 10% interest on said amount from the date of complaint till the realization of said amount.
- The opponent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally within two months from the receipt of copy order do pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
